Originally Posted by Lucky161 I'll reiterate that I'm just a fan. But I don't see the tire companies being that greedy. By greedy I mean willing to forsake long term sales for the sake of selling a bunch of tires to a smaller group that's willing and perhaps eager to spend a lot of money on tires. I think Hoosier for sure is already involved in providing "track" or "series" tires for a number of series, particularly IMCA and IMCA type modifieds but also late models and sprints. I think they see the benefit of selling a few tires to a lot of people just as much as selling a lot of tires to a few people. It was years ago and in street stock when I actually owned and drove but we ran Hoosiers back then and found them to be pretty cost effective. We could actually get a season out of a tire back then and compared to the street tires we ran they had tons of grip. And thanks to all that have contributed to this thread.

Lucky -

You make a good point about multiple series. I think you might be surprised at just how much "the have's" are spending. I still vividly remember watching a crew member from a big team at an ARCA midget race hand the tire truck guy a $10,000 check and proudly proclaim, "Let me know when that runs out." Then he grabbed (4) more tires...And, this was around 10-yrs ago and not even with USAC!

Jimmy B.

[Hamby812]

Originally Posted by Need For Speed Not trying to be an ass here, but........ YOU made the decision to use 2 sets of tires during the day. If you would be fine with a new rule mandating 1 set of tires per day, why not do that now....as a 'business decision' ? (hey, it was popular for Clauson and Jones to do it at L-burg) According to the info provided in this thread, a set of pavement tires is $1,500...so x 2 sets= $3,000/day for tires. With USAC's purse structure, how far back can you finish the feature, and be within $1,500 of the winners share? "The downside is that every once in a while you get a set of brand new tires that absolutely won't work. What do you do about that?" Well, this isn't NASCAR, it's sprint car racing. Once you push off, you get what you get. You can miss the set up at any time, on any day/night. If that set of stickers is junk, does Hoosier give you your money back?......... Rob, I respect you, and your operation. But, a racer is a racer, and most times racers spend a lot of money to gain a couple of tenths a second/lap. Money that isn't justified at the payoff window. Money that they try to say someone else is forcing them to spend, to 'stay competitive'. Yet, they complain that it costs too much to race. In the 70's, how much did you have in a race ready car, what were you spending to run a show at Winchester, and what did it pay to win. In 2009, how much do you have in a race ready car, what are you spending to run a show at Winchester, and what does it pay to win? How much faster is the cars of today, vs the cars of the 70's? How many THOUSANDS of dollars did each second of speed cost you? This doesn't even take into consideration the cost of the rigs and huge trailers of today vs the pick-up trucks/vans and open trailers of years ago....all of which is included in the total cost of 'doing business'. I'm not saying we should still be running the same cars from the 70's, or that innovation is a bad thing. But the willingness to spend $$ to go a little faster, is something you do on your own.

No offense, but to everyone who keeps bringing up the 60's, 70's, so forth is fine but really has nothing to do with this thread. Ya race cars(every part included) are far more expensive than they were, but so are regular cars, trucks, food, gas, everything. In all honesty some teams back then were probably no diffrent than now in that they had more money invested than others. And well as for the rigs i dont want to get into that because I do see that as a huge expense that really accomplishes nothing more than show. Its nice to have all that room and such but not mandatory.

And for someone who has raced on pavement, theres a big diffrence in missing the setup than having a bad set of tires, a bad set of tires wont cost you tenths it'll cost you seconds a lap, its literally like driving on ice, honestly a bad set of tires, with no option of buying more is just flat out dangerous. But then I guess they could do what BC and jones did that got them plenty of pats on the back and just load up and go home. Theres no good fix to the problem.

1. More races just equal more money spent.

2. One set of tires, and you get a bad set is just dangerous.

3. Combo cars, well honestly all I can do at that is laugh, were not in the 60's anymore.

4. Have a poll on what you prefer, Dirt sprint car shows or Pavement.....then think to yourself if youd rather have a dirt car or pavement.

[quicktime3]

I know of some, especially in midgets, who have decided not to race because of the tire problem. Even with open options, people have had problems with just getting a "bad tire." And of course, as all racers do, they thought there was some conspiracy going on with the supply of tires, and who got first pick, and so on and so forth...

If everyone is limited to just one right-rear per night, would that force guys to test to make sure they had a tire that fires and will make them competitive. Will they test just to make sure they've got a good set, and then let them sit until the race?

[SUPERDUKE]

Originally Posted by Hamby812 No offense, but to everyone who keeps bringing up the 60's, 70's, so forth is fine but really has nothing to do with this thread. Ya race cars(every part included) are far more expensive than they were, but so are regular cars, trucks, food, gas, everything. In all honesty some teams back then were probably no diffrent than now in that they had more money invested than others. And well as for the rigs i dont want to get into that because I do see that as a huge expense that really accomplishes nothing more than show. Its nice to have all that room and such but not mandatory. And for someone who has raced on pavement, theres a big diffrence in missing the setup than having a bad set of tires, a bad set of tires wont cost you tenths it'll cost you seconds a lap, its literally like driving on ice, honestly a bad set of tires, with no option of buying more is just flat out dangerous. But then I guess they could do what BC and jones did that got them plenty of pats on the back and just load up and go home. Theres no good fix to the problem. 1. More races just equal more money spent. 2. One set of tires, and you get a bad set is just dangerous. 3. Combo cars, well honestly all I can do at that is laugh, were not in the 60's anymore. 4. Have a poll on what you prefer, Dirt sprint car shows or Pavement.....then think to yourself if youd rather have a dirt car or pavement.

WELL IN THE 60 70s THEY DID NOT HAVE ONE TIRE COMPANY AND YOU COULD RACE THE TIRES MORE THEN ONE RACE!!!!!!!!!!! I KNOW FOR A FACT THE LARRY DICKSON WON THREE PAVEMENT RACES ON A WEEKEND WITH THE SAME RT.REAR FIRESTONE!!!!!!!!!AND YOU DID RACE THE SAME CAR ON DIRT AND PAVEMENT SO YOU DID NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS!SO WITH ONE TIRE COMPANY THEY CAN BUILD AND SELL AND CHARGE YOU FOR ALL THESE JUNK TIRES!!!!! JUST LIKE NASCAR WHY DO THEY SPEND ALL THAT TIME AND MONEY TO RUN TIME TRAILS TO RACE 5 TO 10 MPH SLOWER IN THE RACE ON JUNK TIRE THAT FALL OFF IN 5 LAPS? WHEN IN THE 60 70s THEY COULD RACE THE DAYTONA 500 ON FIRESTONES AND NEVER HAD TO CHANGE A TIRE! YOU NEED TO OPEN THE TIRES TO THE BEST AND AND AFORDABLE TIRE COMPANYS!

[Lucky161]

Originally Posted by Hamby812 No offense, but to everyone who keeps bringing up the 60's, 70's, so forth is fine but really has nothing to do with this thread. Ya race cars(every part included) are far more expensive than they were, but so are regular cars, trucks, food, gas, everything. In all honesty some teams back then were probably no diffrent than now in that they had more money invested than others. And well as for the rigs i dont want to get into that because I do see that as a huge expense that really accomplishes nothing more than show. Its nice to have all that room and such but not mandatory. And for someone who has raced on pavement, theres a big diffrence in missing the setup than having a bad set of tires, a bad set of tires wont cost you tenths it'll cost you seconds a lap, its literally like driving on ice, honestly a bad set of tires, with no option of buying more is just flat out dangerous. But then I guess they could do what BC and jones did that got them plenty of pats on the back and just load up and go home. Theres no good fix to the problem. 1. More races just equal more money spent. 2. One set of tires, and you get a bad set is just dangerous. 3. Combo cars, well honestly all I can do at that is laugh, were not in the 60's anymore. 4. Have a poll on what you prefer, Dirt sprint car shows or Pavement.....then think to yourself if youd rather have a dirt car or pavement.

You make some good points, but I think the references to the 60s are relevent to this thread. They represent a time when things were simpler and decent car counts were not so rare. Of course you can't completely go back, but there is nothing wrong in my opinion with considering what worked then and seeing if any of it can be applied to the current situation. Something or somethings cause low car counts. Perhaps it's just plain old lack of interest, but I don't think that's the case. A bad tire or set of tires? Yes, I've heard of that. But I think it happens less when the envelope is not being pushed so hard.

You can laugh at the combo cars, but I saw some great racing going on when combo cars were the norm. Not surprisingly at least to me, most of the guys that were good on dirt were also good on pavement and visa versa.

We always have polls and our votes are usually with our dollars whether we are fans or competitors. Personally my vote goes to Dirt sprint winged shows, dirt sprint non winged shows, pavement winged shows and pavement non winged shows in no particular order. I like them all and don't think it's asking too much to be able to see them all either.

[wbr]

Rob H. is correct. Most teams use 2 sets of 3 tires per race. We use the same LF all year if it holds air.
One set of 3 is about $900 so figure $1800 per race for tires. We do the same as Hoffmans, hot lap both sets, qualify on the better one and heat race on the other.

Yes USAC still does have the rule for one right rear tire. No longer than we have been racing we had a RR seperate in practice at Iowa and the driver couldn't see in the straightaways due to the vibration. RR #2 put him on the pole. So limiting the tires would have been a curse for us.
Also, in my opinion, the hoosiers we use are only good for 3 heat cycles. They just won't grip after that. Limit the tires, then time on the track (in front of the fans) will need to be limited also. Thats good for the racers but probably bad for the sport.

Back in the 60's there wasn't any titanium, carbon fiber or even aluminum. Maybe the tires are the wrong thing to be looking at to reduce cost. What are your thoughts?

Originally Posted by wbr Rob H. is correct. Most teams use 2 sets of 3 tires per race. We use the same LF all year if it holds air. One set of 3 is about $900 so figure $1800 per race for tires. We do the same as Hoffmans, hot lap both sets, qualify on the better one and heat race on the other. Yes USAC still does have the rule for one right rear tire. No longer than we have been racing we had a RR seperate in practice at Iowa and the driver couldn't see in the straightaways due to the vibration. RR #2 put him on the pole. So limiting the tires would have been a curse for us. Also, in my opinion, the hoosiers we use are only good for 3 heat cycles. They just won't grip after that. Limit the tires, then time on the track (in front of the fans) will need to be limited also. Thats good for the racers but probably bad for the sport. Back in the 60's there wasn't any titanium, carbon fiber or even aluminum. Maybe the tires are the wrong thing to be looking at to reduce cost. What are your thoughts?

It definitely sounds like tire quality is lacking on a consistent basis. Maybe it's not a question of costs as much as it is about quality. It's always been said that people will pay more for what they perceive to be a quality product. (Some examples could be farm-fresh produce vs. store bought or even an IPod vs. a generic MP3 player.)

Can't help but remember some things from a recent CNBC documentary reporting how NASCAR is coping in this economic downturn. Clearly, the differences between NASCAR and pavement sprints are immense. But, I keep thinking about how much money is involved. It was reported that Stewart-Haas spends on average $600,000 total per car, per race for everything including crew expenses, etc. WOW...Hardly seems sustainable at all!!

It's undisputable that NASCAR has changed dramatically over the yrs. One could argue that they've changed for the better or for the worse. The point is that NASCAR is extremely successful (i.e. profitable) on all levels. It also interacts heavily with its very devout fan base & sponsorships. NASCAR knows that its fans are most important. It's now a culture where everyone feels like partners and much more than a racing body. It's really much bigger than itself so to speak.

So, maybe it's time to start thinking bigger picture here for this national series. Cutting operating costs are great but really only go so far. Anyone remember the NAMARS days in the 90's in their heyday? Ask people about their banquets & how much stuff they gave away. Or, how many times extra product certificates were mailed w/the results check after that team wrecked or blew a motor? Or, the extensive promotions in conjunction w/the track? Cost issues were addressed but not a huge issue like it is with USAC.

It boils down to creating more $$$ for everyone to create something bigger than itself. I'm not sure this is possible.
Thanks for the opportunity to post. Again, this is my opinion & mine only & meant to offer help & not upset anyone.

Jimmy Baumgartner

[v8j]

Remember we as racers- drivers,crews,and owners WE ARE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS.

[Geoff Kaiser]

I can't speak for what usac, hoss, or avss is going to do about the situation but look for a new pavement series in 2010 with 12 races all televised (comcast, internet, etc.) with a tire/cost rule in place that helps the racers not the series owner or tire company.

[v8j]

well we all see that their is a problem.except maybe usac. so let push for a change!